Why do YOU think Healthcare is a Right and not a Privilege?

[Mistame]

It's a bit silly to debate this. The answer depends on where you live.

It's silly to debate this, but not because it depends on where you live but because the questioned posed is irrelevant to the greater issue.

I can't think of any other products or services that are universally given out for free. So, I would say no, it should not be a right. But, due to the realities on the ground in the US, I would argue the public wants us to become a nation that makes it a right. I would like it if we offered basic care free to all, and only used insurance for the big stuff like surgery, or cancer. That would get most people the care they need, and the truly poor few that could not afford the relatively cheaper catastrophe insurance, we could just give them for free like we have been doing since the 1960's.

The issue is that people misunderstand what an actual right is and tend to confuse it with colloquial usage, as in "the right to something". You are absolutely entitled any product or service that you've paid for. You're also entitled to any public service that you pay taxes for. So in that context, you'd have the "right" to those products or services, but since access to them is based on a predetermined agreement (eg, pay your water bill, get water service) and said agreement can be revoked at any time, by either party, it is by definition a privilege.

But like I said, the debate itself is pointless and serves only to distract away from the actual discussion of "Can we and should we?" So the issue is less, "do we have a 'right' to healthcare", and more, "does government have an obligation to provide us with a means of obtaining affordable healthcare" and the answer to the latter question is a resounding "yes". Personally, I think a basic healthcare system so that everyone is covered on "wear and tear", etc, and general well-being is important. It should run parallel with the private sector so those with the means can expand their options if want. But it should also remain a basic system that's not used for elective surgeries and things that can be controlled. Like having a half-dozen kids.

[purebalance]

Basic greed. The amount of TV adds for drugs, which those cost a lot of money to televise, is one clue how big of a industry it is here in the US.

lol no because either A) the people working for the ambulance are being paid less or B) the government is helping to pay the costs which ultimately is costing EVERYONE

It isn't cheaper and it isn't greed. Someone is paying somewhere.

And yes it is an industry. If you want to go to the doctor because you have a sore throat that just started this morning, your ass needs to be paying something. People in the US since ACA have been RIDICULOUS with their abuse of the healthcare system and they get on the phone to demand antibiotics for viral infections that won't do shit.

- - - Updated - - -

This is actually a very valid point. It would mean that Doctors would be forced to treat people for 0 pay if it came down to it.

The reason healthcare has been declining in quality in countries that have socialized healthcare is because people don't want to spend 10+ years in higher education + residency only to get out and make shit pay or be forced to treat people that cant or won't pay. Or, they don't want an earnings ceiling that their government imposes on the profession.

And don't even give me that crap that "oh most doctors don't do it for the pay." We all know that one liner is bullshit at the highest degree. They may say they "want to make a difference and want to help people" but at the end of the day, if I was only making 60k a year because it was considered a "right" in my country, I would quit that profession in a heart beat and go become a programmer or something where I can make higher earnings.

I mean there were people in this thread advocating for that sense of communism that doctors shouldn't be making what they make even though they made a tremendous time and monetary investment into becoming a doctor meanwhile someone working at McDonalds had maybe a week of training that was paid for by the owner.

If you weren't going to be paid well, most people would not become a doctor.

[Slybak]

Something being "afforded to you" does not make it a right. In fact, if a government can grant something (and thus, revoke it), by definition it's a privilege, not a right, as rights are inalienable.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
- From the same piece of paper where you got the idea that rights are inalienable.

This is actually a very valid point. It would mean that Doctors would be forced to treat people for 0 pay if it came down to it.

The Constitution of the State of New York guarantees, as a right, a free education to every child in the state. For reasons that escape me, but perhaps you can explain, New York State Troopers have yet to kidnap me and shackle me to a blackboard in order to fulfill this obligation.

[Seezer]

Personally I think Healthcare is a privilege and not a right.

If you misuse your body you should have to deal with the consequences unless you have purchased protection in the form of insurance.

Also, in ANY civilized country, no hospital is going to turn you away if you have something life threatening that HAS to be taken care of even if you don't have insurance.

Forcing doctors to see patients under universal health care greatly diminishes a doctors will to continue practicing. It also reduces the will of any people who would be willing to undergo 10+ years of education to become a doctor because the limited ability to make good money in the profession.

Many people with health issues dont "misuse" their bodies. People like to think they do so they can feel superior and self righteous. Because that's how people are now.

[Mormolyce]

No, they actually can't be taken away. Rights are inherently inalienable.

Empty rhetoric. The rights the Founding Fathers guaranteed are only inalienable as long as the republic they gave birth to continues to enforce them.

Societies don't "decide" what are rights, they have decided what a "right" is, over the course of centuries, which I've already explained to you. No person, group or government can grant rights because they're inherent the moment you're born. Nor can they can take them away. If a "right" can be taken away, it is, by definition, not a right.

Okay if rights are inherent from the moment you're born, how do you know what they are? Are they whispered into your ear by Zeus?

Again, no. Because a right cannot violate the rights of others.

Yes I can. I say you're wrong about that being your right. Titty twister Tuesday is the only true right.

You just keep saying I'm wrong. Prove it. If it's so self-evident then you must be really easy for you to back your argument up with something. I've chosen a completely ludicrous right and you have so far been unable to prove that I don't have it. It should be easy, so why isn't it?

[Mistame]

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
- From the same piece of paper where you got the idea that rights are inalienable.

You understand that says that governments are instituted to protect rights, right?

The rights the Founding Fathers guaranteed are only inalienable as long as the republic they gave birth to continues to enforce them.

Wrong. Inalienable rights are just that. The existence of a government that acknowledges them is irrelevant. If that weren't the case, then nations that have records for human rights violations wouldn't have those records because the governing bodies could simply point out that the people they govern don't have those rights.

Okay if rights are inherent from the moment you're born, how do you know what they are? Are they whispered into your ear by Zeus?

Not sure why you insist on using hyperbole to make a non-point. You don't have to know that you have those rights for them to exist.

Yes I can. I say you're wrong about that being your right. Titty twister Tuesday is the only true right.

You just keep saying I'm wrong. Prove it. If it's so self-evident then you must be really easy for you to back your argument up with something. I've chosen a completely ludicrous right and you have so far been unable to prove that I don't have it. It should be easy, so why isn't it?

Again, stop being obtuse. I've already showed you why you're wrong. A right cannot violate the rights of others, otherwise it's not a right. At this point, you're just arguing in circles for the sake of arguing. /shrug

[Deleted]

Sorry, there is nothing in the Constitution that says people have the right to expect others to pay for their stuff. Our founding fathers never intended for a centralized government to collect massive amounts of money and redistribute to fund all of these entitlements. They couldn't even levy taxes until the 16th amendment was adopted. Why don't you look at the history of the 16th amendment to see how fast a government can abuse its citizens.

I see you are quoting the Declaration of Independence. I guess you believe in God then? Because the Declaration says we were Endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Life means the government can't take it from us without cause, liberty means we have freedom as individuals, and pursuit of happiness in NOT A GUARANTEE of happiness. It means we have the opportunity, which is all you should expect out of life.

Anyone expecting anything else is a filthy moocher.

But other people pay for your roads, your schools and your army navy and air force. Why is it you want poor people to suffer and die from lack of healthcare?

Is it because you're alright, jack?

[Tyrianth]

There is no such thing as an "inalienable" right. There isn't a single right that can't be taken away. They very concept of an "inalienable" right is childish and naive.

[Mistame]

There is no such thing as an "inalienable" right. There isn't a single right that can't be taken away. They very concept of an "inalienable" right is childish and naive.

And that line of logic is ignorant and infantile. Person-hood comes with inherent, inalienable rights (life, liberty, etc). That you believe differently is irrelevant.

[Tyrianth]

And that line of logic is ignorant and infantile. Person-hood comes with inherent, inalienable rights (life, liberty, etc). That you believe differently is irrelevant.

How are these rights inalienable?

An inalienable right cannot be taken away, by definition. Yet, one look at various countries around the world and you notice that these rights are being taken away from people. Therefore, not inalienable.

All rights, every single one, is granted, and defended, by the government and extends only to their residents. If there were no government, you would have zero rights.

Any and all rights can be taken away from you. You're just lucky enough to live in a country that actually honours them. Go tell a North Korean their rights are inalienable.

[Glorious Leader]

And that line of logic is ignorant and infantile. Person-hood comes with inherent, inalienable rights (life, liberty, etc). That you believe differently is irrelevant.

Do you think like on the planet rigel XIII they have the same view of property?

- - - Updated - - -

How are these rights inalienable?

An inalienable right cannot be taken away, by definition. Yet, one look at various countries around the world and you notice that these rights are being taken away from people. Therefore, not inalienable.

All rights, every single one, is granted, and defended, by the government and extends only to their residents.

Any and all rights can be taken away from you. You're just lucky enough to live in a country that actually honours them. Go tell a North Korean their rights are inalienable.

It's more natural rights bullshit. It's an empty philosophy ignorant of the reality of life because it's useful to support an agenda. It should have died with rothbard but they kept pumping money into it so here we are talking about it.

[Mistame]

An inalienable right cannot be taken away, by definition.

Correct. You're confusing "taken away" with "violated".

Yet, one look at various countries around the world and you notice that these rights are being taken away from people.

They're not being "taken away", they're being violated. There's a difference.

All rights, every single one, is granted, and defended, by the government and extends only to their residents.

Wrong. Governments can acknowledge and defend them, but it cannot grant them.

Any and all rights can be taken away from you.

Anything that government can "grant" and thus, "take away" is by definition a privilege, not a right. Government exists at the consent of the people. Rights to do not exist at the consent of government.

Go tell a North Korean their rights are inalienable.

North Korea violates human rights all the time. Hell, even China does. If those rights aren't inalienable, how is it that a country can violate them when they can simply say, "We don't allow our citizens to have those rights, therefore we're not violating them"?

Do you think like on the planet rigel XIII they have the same view of property?

Is this supposed to actually mean something? Property is an extension of person-hood. Anything you create, earn or obtain freely at your own expense is by all rights yours.

It's more natural rights bullshit. It's an empty philosophy ignorant of the reality of life because it's useful to support an agenda. It should have died with rothbard but they kept pumping money into it so here we are talking about it.

So what, you don't think people have an innate right to live? Maybe you're misinterpreting my posts or something. /shrug

[Glorious Leader]

They're not being "taken away", they're being violated. There's a difference.

No not really. They didn't exist without government to begin with. Cavemen have no conception of rights. Primordial humans have no conception of such. They are still humans but without the veneer of the state it's meaningless.

The fact is rights exists because they represent a shared set of values from members of the state. They can not exist if the members of the society decide they dont want them to exist anymore. They are not "natural" in the same sense as the natural philosophy (i.e science). They are constructs of men and can be deconstructed by men.

[Tyrianth]

Correct. You're confusing "taken away" with "violated".

It's neither actually. They never had them in the first place. Can't violate or take away rights when you don't have them.

They're not being "taken away", they're being violated. There's a difference.

Can't violate what they never had.

Wrong. Governments can acknowledge and defend them, but it cannot grant them.

All rights are granted.

Anything that government can "grant" and thus, "take away" is by definition a privilege, not a right. Government exists at the consent of the people. Rights to do not exist at the consent of government.

Using that logic, no rights exist, since all rights can be taken away. Though if we use the more moderate and accepted definition of a right, a right is a privilege that a country can not legally revoke. But that alone does that make them "inalienable" or "natural".

North Korea violates human rights all the time. Hell, even China does. If those rights aren't inalienable, how is it that they a country can violate them when they can simply say, "We don't allow our citizens to have those rights, therefore we're not violating them"?

You're right, they never had those so called "inalienable rights" in the first place.

[Glorious Leader]

Is this supposed to actually mean something? Property is an extension of person-hood. Anything you create, earn or obtain freely at your own expense is by all rights yours.



So what, you don't think people have an innate right to live? Maybe you're misinterpreting my posts or something. /shrug

Since everything you create or earn is potentially earned or created at the expense of others nothing is by any rights yours. If you claim a plot of land then I no longer have the right to cross that land. Your claim has come at my expense. That's if you accept the formulation that property is a natural right and an extension of personhood. I don't. It's a construct enforced by the state. It is EMPTY without the state.

So what, you don't think people have an innate right to live? Maybe you're misinterpreting my posts or something

Since their is no such conception as "innate" rights this question is meaningless. Can you point to what causes someone to have an "innate" right? Where do these "innate" rights come from? Were they created at the big bang? Are they a remnant of some stellar process? Can you subject the concept of "innate" rights to any empirical process? Can they be measured and quantified?

[Mistame]

No not really. They didn't exist without government to begin with.

They exist, though they may not be acknowledged.

Cavemen have no conception of rights. Primordial humans have no conception of such. They are still humans but without the veneer of the state it's meaningless.

This is irrelevant. We're not cavemen.

The fact is rights exists because they represent a shared set of values from members of the state. They can not exist if the members of the society decide they dont want them to exist anymore. They are not "natural" in the same sense as the natural philosophy (i.e science). They are constructs of men and can be deconstructed by men.

Wrong. Human rights are an extension of person-hood and exist regardless of the consent or acknowledgement of society, government or anyone else.

Since everything you create or earn is potentially earned or created at the expense of others nothing is by any rights yours.

I'm not sure where you pulling this nonsense from. To use a modern example, anything I purchase with money I've earned through my own labor inherently belongs to me.

If you claim a plot of land then I no longer have the right to cross that land. Your claim has come at my expense.

You don't have a right to cross any land that doesn't belong to you or that isn't public property. So no, it's not "at your expense".

That's if you accept the formulation that property is a natural right and an extension of personhood. I don't. It's a construct enforced by the state. It is EMPTY without the state.

What you "accept" is irrelevant.

Since their is no such conception as "innate" rights this question is meaningless. Can you point to what causes someone to have an "innate" right? Where do these "innate" rights come from? Were they created at the big bang? Are they a remnant of some stellar process? Can you subject the concept of "innate" rights to any empirical process? Can they be measured and quantified?

This is just drivel.

[Glorious Leader]

They exist, though they may not be acknowledged.



This is irrelevant. We're not cavemen.



Wrong. Human rights are an extension of person-hood and exist regardless of the consent or acknowledgement of society, government or anyone else.

No they don't. You may think they do and that value may be shared but their existence is not merely because you said so. They exist because we agree they do and we agree to enforce them as part of our contract with the state.

It is entirely relevant. If rights are "innate" to humans then homosapiens (including cavemen) ought to have them.

Cavemen have personhood and they exist do they have "innate" rights? Where did they come from? Can you point a specific helical strand of dna? Can you point to some organ or physical process that grants them?

[Deleted]

No not really. They didn't exist without government to begin with. Cavemen have no conception of rights.

Cavemen could talk.
No government had to grant them the right to talk.

- - - Updated - - -

Using that logic, no rights exist, since all rights can be taken away. Though if we use the more moderate and accepted definition of a right, a right is a privilege that a country can not legally revoke. But that alone does that make them "inalienable" or "natural".

No power on earth can stop me talking.
They can only punish me for talking.

[Glorious Leader]

Cavemen could talk.
No government had to grant them the right to talk.

They could? They could grunt and make sounds but would you qualify that as talk? Even if that's the case "talking" can be attributed to a whole host of process that can be qualified and quantified empirically. In fact a whole branch of social science "linguistics" exists to do just this. The case that natural rights are as "innate" should bear the same weight. The case for natural rights is basically asking does this unit have a soul? It's not clear that the soul exists or that it's "innate" in all humans. It's metaphysical nonsense just like natural rights.

The argument that rights come from the state however has far more weight behind it. When you argue that the state grants rights that's pretty much a dead end. When you argue for some metaphysical natural rights nonsense it leads to a host of other questions that basically never end. It's exactly like the case for god. You can believe in god but it really just only leaves more questsions.

[Tyrianth]

They can only punish me for talking.

So then you don't have an inalienable right to free speech. If it was free speech you wouldn't be punished.

No power on earth can stop me talking.

There are plenty of ways to strip a person of their ability to speak.